Introduction

Through review of the Danskammer Energy, LLC (Applicant) preliminary scoping document, section 5.0 Identification of Demographic and Economic Attributes of the Community, the applicant asserts two important facts that are critical to this independent analysis document for environmental justice (EJ) project impacts. First, the applicant asserts - correctly - that:

While both municipalities are predominantly white, there are growing minority populations in these areas.

Secondly, as stated:

Between 2000 and 2010, both the Town and County experienced an increase in the black, Asian and Hispanic populations.

Through these two assertions, the applicant firstly admits that demographic change is afoot in the project geography. Secondly, the applicant emphasizes its screening analysis period - 2000 to 2010. As will be shown, the demographic change noted by the applicant has significantly quickened since the 2000-2010 period in close proximity to the project. By utilizing a stale, bygone screening analysis period, the applicant has failed to capture the most dramatic demographic changes, resulting in a deficient EJ analysis product that misleads the public and misconstrues adverse project impacts on EJ eligible populations.

Scoping Data Requirements

To Determine EJ eligible populations, the applicant is required to utilize New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) guidance, applying the following threshold criteria to input data:

At least 51.1% of the population in an urban area reported themselves to be members of minority groups; or

At least 33.8% of the population in a rural area reported themselves to be members of minority groups; or

At least 23.59% of the population in an urban or rural area had household incomes below the federal poverty level.

It should be noted that NYSDEC does not explicitly state which input data products should be utilized in the determination of eligible populations.

In its scoping statement, section 5.3.2 Preliminary Scoping Statement Requirements, the applicant goes on to indeed state its chosen data sources:

Data sources will include the most recent decennial Census and American Community Survey data available from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

From this statement, its apparent that the applicant analysis will be conducted at least in part upon data now 10 years old. In review of both scoping and application mapping outputs, its clear that while the low income variable was determined based on the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) data product, the minority variable was determined on the 2010 decennial census data product. By applying this ‘mix and match’ approach to demographic analysis, the applicant has avoided disclosure of highly proximate EJ populations in the study area.

In Figure 1 to follow, the appearance is given that no eligible EJ populations exist in close proximity to project site denoted by the red dot centered in the map:

Applicant EJ Geography Determinations

Inconsistent with Federal Technical Guidance

While NYSDEC threshold formulations are unique to state requirements, the larger Environmental Justice legal framework flows from the federal level, specifically EO 12898. To assist local communities in early EJ screening activities, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the auspice of EO 12898 has utilized the EJSCREEN product throughout the late 2000’s. This is an easily accessible, well organized dataset that is free to use, both in online format and in desktop analysis. Importantly, since 2019, the desktop product - also served into the online mapping portal - utilizes the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5 yr. dataset for its demographic profiles and indexes.

As seen in the following EJSCREEN online portal screengrab (Figure 2 below), census block group (CBG) 360710101021 intersects with the proposed Danskammer project site. Unlike the applicant’s determination of NO EJ eligbiblity for this geography - asserting 35.7% minority based on 2010 decennial data - the geography based on 2014-2018 ACS data is 59% minority-majority.

This is not an insignificant discrepancy literally at, in and immediately proximate to the project proposal itself.

EJSCREEN Tool Interface @ Intersecting Danskammer Census Geography

Independent Analysis Finding

In order to determine the cause of the discrepancy noted above, two strategies have been deployed in this independent analysis. First, three 5-year ACS products since the 2010 decennial census were evaluated for both the minority and income variables for the intersecting census block group (CBG) 360710101021.

Census Tract 101.02, Block Group 1 Intersects with the Proposed Danskammer Plant (green cross icon)

Across each product, the income variable did not warrant further attention. However, a significant upward trend is seen throughout the ACS products for the minority variable, crossing the NYSDEC EJ eligibility threshold first in the 2014-2018 product. The following table summarizes this evaluation:

Census Product % Minority at subject census geography
2015 - 2019 Census American Community Survey 5 Year Estimate 64.1
2014 - 2018 Census American Community Survey 5 Year Estimate 58.6
2009 - 2013 Census American Community Survey 5 Year Estimate 32.3
Applicant - 2010 Decennial Census Product 35.7

Given the significant increase between the applicant’s utilization of the 2010 decennial product and the ACS survey results after 2014, a simple question is obvious and pressing:

To answer this question, NYS Clearinghouse Orthoimagery has been analyzed, comparing imagery from 2009 to that of 2016. When compared, clearly there is new residential development in the southwest of the CBG geography as seen in Figure 4 on the following page:

Orthoimagery Comparison at/near Proposed Project - 2009 - 2016

Adverse Impacts have not been accurately depicted

Having established the material fact of EJ eligible populations immediately proximate to the proposed project, consideration turns to the applicant’s disclosure of air impact exceedances. Importantly these impacts have not been analyzed relative to the above disclosure of the EJ eligible proximate geography.

As demonstrated by the applicant through its air modeling for criteria pollutants and summarized in Figure 5 to follow, 3 Significant Impact level (SIL) exceedances exist across the \(PM-2.5\) and \(NO{2}\) criteria pollutants:

SIL exceedances highlighted in red

While regionally the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) thresholds have been met in the applicant’s modeling, localized impacts are indeed present and demonstrated by the applicant through density map outputs. On the following page, the applicant’s maps for the 3 SIL exceedances are shown; importantly, the most impacted Census Tract 101.02, Block Group 1 is missing from the maps:

Modeled and mapped SIL exceedances

The Danskammer Application is deficient and requires immediate remediation

As demonstrated through this independent analysis, Census Tract 101.02, Block Group 1 - the most proximate and impacted geography - is both EJ eligible and completely missing from the applicant’s analysis. In light of this omission, the following two assertions are incorrect and misleading and must be cured before further consideration of the project proposal.

First, the applicant asserts that since NAAQS thresholds have been met through modeling, there are no adverse air quality impacts within the EJ Areas:

All modeled project impacts, except for 24-hour PM-10/PM-2.5, annual PM-2.5, and 1-hour NO2 impacts are below SILs. The sum of maximum calculated impacts and background levels are below the corresponding NAAQS for all pollutants and averaging periods. Therefore, the Project is not considered to have any adverse air quality impacts within the EJ Areas.

Second, the applicant typifies the pattern of the air impacts (after asserting there are no air impacts) as generally modeled to occur at or near the Project fence line. Indeed, this is the exact location of the missing Census Tract 101.02, Block Group 1:

The maximum modeled Project impacts are generally modeled to occur at or near to the Project fence line or located to the west-northwest of the Project and outside the potential EJ areas. Therefore, the identified EJ Areas will not receive a disproportionately significant and adverse share of the maximum modeled Project impacts on air quality.

Census Tract 101.02, Block Group 1 is literally the definition of a Fenceline Community, yet remains unmapped and missing from any consideration by the applicant. The preceding analysis overview clearly demonstrates that the application as it stands is both highly misleading and demonstrably deficient. The omission of this critical geography from the applicant’s analysis process is nothing short of an environmental injustice and bureaucratic failure.